draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-01.txt   draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-02.txt 
Network Working Group Tomohiro Otani Network Working Group Tomohiro Otani
Internet-Draft KDDI Internet Draft KDDI
Intended status: Informational Kenichi Ogaki Intended status: Informational Kenichi Ogaki
Expires: January, 2010 KDDI R&D Labs KDDI R&D Labs
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
Fatai Zhang Fatai Zhang
Huawei Huawei
July 8, 2009 Expires: January 2011 July 6, 2010
Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE Requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE
Document: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-01.txt Document: draft-ietf-pce-gmpls-aps-req-02.txt
Status of this Memo Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2011.
Abstract Abstract
The initial effort of PCE WG is specifically focused on MPLS (Multi- The initial effort of PCE WG is specifically focused on MPLS (Multi-
protocol label switching). As a next step, this draft describes protocol label switching). As a next step, this draft describes
functional requirements for GMPLS (Generalized MPLS) application of functional requirements for GMPLS (Generalized MPLS) application of
PCE (Path computation element). PCE (Path computation element).
Conventions used in this document
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Status of this Memo..............................................1 1. Introduction.................................................2
Abstract.........................................................1 2. Terminology..................................................3
1. Introduction..................................................3 3. GMPLS applications of PCE....................................3
2. Conventions used in this document.............................3 3.1. GMPLS network model.....................................3
3. GMPLS applications of PCE.....................................3 3.2. Path computation in GMPLS network.......................3
4. Requirement for GMPLS application of PCE......................5 3.3. Unnumbered Interface....................................5
5. Security consideration........................................6 3.4. Asymmetric Bandwidth Path Computation...................6
6. IANA Considerations...........................................7 4. Requirement for GMPLS application of PCE.....................6
7. Acknowledgement...............................................7 4.1. PCE requirements........................................6
8. Intellectual Property.........................................7 4.2. PCC requirements........................................7
9. Informative references........................................8 4.3. GMPLS PCE Management....................................7
Author's Addresses...............................................9 5. Security consideration.......................................7
Full Copyright statement.........................................9 6. IANA Considerations..........................................7
7. Acknowledgement..............................................7
8. References...................................................7
9. Authors' Addresses...........................................9
1. Introduction 1. Introduction
The initial effort of PCE WG is focused on solving the path The initial effort of PCE WG is focused on solving the path
computation problem over different domains in MPLS networks. As the computation problem over different domains in MPLS networks. As the
same case with MPLS, service providers (SPs) have also come up with same case with MPLS, service providers (SPs) have also come up with
requirements for path computation in GMPLS networks such as photonics, requirements for path computation in GMPLS networks such as photonics,
TDM-based or Ethernet-based networks as well. TDM-based or Ethernet-based networks as well.
[PCE-ARCH] and [PCECP-REQ] discuss the framework and requirements for [PCE-ARCH] and [PCECP-REQ] discuss the framework and requirements for
PCE on both packet MPLS networks and (non-packet switch capable) PCE on both packet MPLS networks and (non-packet switch capable)
GMPLS networks. This document complements these documents by GMPLS networks. This document complements these documents by
providing some consideration of GMPLS applications in the intra- providing some consideration of GMPLS applications in the intra-
domain and inter-domain networking environments and indicating a set domain and inter-domain networking environments and indicating a set
of requirements for the extended definition of series of PCE related of requirements for the extended definition of series of PCE related
protocols. protocols.
Constraint based shortest path first (CSPF) computation within a Constraint based shortest path first (CSPF) computation within a
domain or over domains for signaling GMPLS Label Switched Paths domain or over domains for signaling GMPLS Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
(LSPs) is more stringent than that of MPLS LSPs [MPLS-AS], because is more stringent than that of MPLS LSPs [MPLS-AS], because the
the additional constraints, e.g., interface switching capability, additional constraints, e.g., interface switching capability, link
link encoding, link protection capability and so forth need to be encoding, link protection capability and so forth need to be
considered to establish GMPLS LSPs [CSPF]. GMPLS signaling protocol considered to establish GMPLS LSPs [CSPF]. GMPLS signaling protocol
[RFC3471, RFC3473] is designed taking into account bi-directionality, [RFC3471, RFC3473] is designed taking into account bi-directionality,
switching type, encoding type, SRLG, and protection attributes of the switching type, encoding type, SRLG, and protection attributes of the
TE links spanned by the path, as well as LSP encoding and switching TE links spanned by the path, as well as LSP encoding and switching
type for the end points, appropriately. type for the end points, appropriately.
This document provides the investigated results of GMPLS applications This document provides the investigated results of GMPLS applications
of PCE for the support of GMPLS path computation. This document also of PCE for the support of GMPLS path computation. This document also
provides requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE in the GMPLS provides requirements for GMPLS applications of PCE in the GMPLS
intra-domain and inter-domain environments. intra-domain and inter-domain environments.
2. Conventions used in this document 2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119]. document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
3. GMPLS applications of PCE 3. GMPLS applications of PCE
3.1 GMPLS network model 3.1. GMPLS network model
Figure 1 depicts a typical network, consisting of several GMPLS Figure 1 depicts a typical network, consisting of several GMPLS
domains, assumed in this document. D1, D2, D3 and D4 have multiple domains, assumed in this document. D1, D2, D3 and D4 have multiple
GMPLS inter-domain connections, and D5 has only one GMPLS inter- GMPLS inter-domain connections, and D5 has only one GMPLS inter-
domain connection. These domains follow the definition in [RFC4726]. domain connection. These domains follow the definition in [RFC4726].
+---------+ +---------+
+---------|GMPLS D2|----------+ +---------|GMPLS D2|----------+
| +----+----+ | | +----+----+ |
+----+----+ | +----+----+ +---------+ +----+----+ | +----+----+ +---------+
|GMPLS D1| | |GMPLS D4|---|GMPLS D5| |GMPLS D1| | |GMPLS D4|---|GMPLS D5|
+----+----+ | +----+----+ +---------+ +----+----+ | +----+----+ +---------+
| +----+----+ | | +----+----+ |
+---------|GMPLS D3|----------+ +---------|GMPLS D3|----------+
+---------+ +---------+
Figure 1: GMPLS Inter-domain network model. Figure 1: GMPLS Inter-domain network model.
Each domain is configured using various switching and link Each domain is configured using various switching and link
technologies defined in [Arch] and an end-to-end route needs to technologies defined in [Arch] and an end-to-end route needs to
respect TE link attributes like switching capability, encoding type, respect TE link attributes like switching capability, encoding type,
etc., making the problem a bit different from the case of classical etc., making the problem a bit different from the case of classical
(packet) MPLS. In order to route from one GMPLS domain to another (packet) MPLS. In order to route from one GMPLS domain to another
GMPLS domain appropriately, each domain manages traffic engineering GMPLS domain appropriately, each domain manages traffic engineering
database (TED) by PCE, and exchanges or provides route information of database (TED) by PCE, and exchanges or provides route information of
paths, while concealing its internal topology information. paths, while concealing its internal topology information.
3.2 Path computation in GMPLS network 3.2. Path computation in GMPLS network
[CSPF] describes consideration of GMPLS TE attributes during path [CSPF] describes consideration of GMPLS TE attributes during path
computation. computation.
Ingress Transit Egress Ingress Transit Egress
+-----+ link1-2 +-----+ link2-3 +-----+ link3-4 +-----+ +-----+ link1-2 +-----+ link2-3 +-----+ link3-4 +-----+
|Node1|------------>|Node2|------------>|Node3|------------>|Node4| |Node1|------------>|Node2|------------>|Node3|------------>|Node4|
| |<------------| |<------------| |<------------| | | |<------------| |<------------| |<------------| |
+-----+ link2-1 +-----+ link3-2 +-----+ link4-3 +-----+ +-----+ link2-1 +-----+ link3-2 +-----+ link4-3 +-----+
Figure 2: Path computation in GMPLS networks. Figure 2: Path computation in GMPLS networks.
For the simplicity in consideration, the below basic assumptions are For the simplicity in consideration, the below basic assumptions are
made when the LSP is created. made when the LSP is created.
(1) Switching capabilities of outgoing links from the ingress (1) Switching capabilities of outgoing links from the ingress and
and egress nodes (link1-2 and link4-3 in Figure 2) must be egress nodes (link1-2 and link4-3 in Figure 2) must be consistent with
consistent with each other. each other.
(2) Switching capabilities of all transit links including (2) Switching capabilities of all transit links including incoming
incoming links to the ingress and egress nodes (link2-1 and links to the ingress and egress nodes (link2-1 and link3-4) should be
link3-4) should be consistent with switching type of a LSP consistent with switching type of a LSP to be created.
to be created. (3) Encoding-types of all transit links should be consistent with
(3) Encoding-types of all transit links should be consistent encoding type of a LSP to be created.
with encoding type of a LSP to be created.
[CSPF] indicates the possible table of switching capability, encoding [CSPF] indicates the possible table of switching capability, encoding
type and bandwidth at the ingress link, transiting links and the type and bandwidth at the ingress link, transiting links and the
egress link which need to be satisfied with the created LSP. egress link which need to be satisfied with the created LSP.
The non-packet GMPLS networks (e.g., TDM networks) are usually The non-packet GMPLS networks (e.g., TDM networks) are usually
responsible for transmitting data for the client layer. These GMPLS responsible for transmitting data for the client layer. These GMPLS
networks can provide different types of connections for customer networks can provide different types of connections for customer
services based on different service bandwidth requests. services based on different service bandwidth requests.
skipping to change at page 5, line 34 skipping to change at page 5, line 26
| | |-----| | | | |-----| |
| +------+ | | | +------+ | |
| N5 | | | N5 | |
| | | | | |
+------+ +------+ +------+ +------+
| | | | +-----+ | | | | +-----+
| |--------------| |--------| | | |--------------| |--------| |
+------+ +------+ +-----+ +------+ +------+ +-----+
N3 N4 A2 N3 N4 A2
Figure 3: A simple SDH network Figure 3: A simple SDH network
Figure 3 shows a simple network topology, where N1, N2, N3, N4, and Figure 3 shows a simple network topology, where N1, N2, N3, N4, and
N5 are all SDH switches. Assume that one Ethernet service with 100M N5 are all SDH switches. Assume that one Ethernet service with 100M
bandwidth is required from A1 to A2 over this network. The client bandwidth is required from A1 to A2 over this network. The client
Ethernet service could be provided by a VC4 connection from N1 to N4, Ethernet service could be provided by a VC4 connection from N1 to N4,
and it could also be provided by three concatenated VC3 connections and it could also be provided by three concatenated VC3 connections
(Contiguous or Virtual concatenation) from N1 to N4. (Contiguous or Virtual concatenation) from N1 to N4.
The type of connection(s) (one VC4 or three concatenated VC3) that is The type of connection(s) (one VC4 or three concatenated VC3) that is
required needs to be specified by PCC (e.g., N1 or NMS), but could required needs to be specified by PCC (e.g., N1 or NMS), but could
also be determined by PCE automatically based on policy [RFC5394]. also be determined by PCE automatically based on policy [RFC5394].
Therefore, the signal type, the type of the concatenation and the Therefore, the signal type, the type of the concatenation and the
number of the concatenation should also be considered during path number of the concatenation should also be considered during path
computation for PCE. computation for PCE.
3.3. Unnumbered Interface
GMPLS support unnumbered interface ID that is defined in [RFC 3477],
which means that the endpoints of the path may be unnumbered. It
should also be possible to request a Path between a numbered link and
an unnumbered link, or a P2MP path between different types of
endpoints. Therefore, the PCC should be capable of indicating the
unnumbered interface ID of the endpoints in the PCReq message.
3.4. Asymmetric Bandwidth Path Computation
As per [RFC 5467], GMPLS signaling can be used for setting up an
asymmetric bandwidth bidirectional LSP. If a PCE is responsible for
the path computation, the PCE should be capable of computing a path
for the bidirectional LSP with asymmetric bandwidth. It means that
the PCC should be able to indicate the asymmetric bandwidth
requirements in forward and reverse directions in the PCReq message.
4. Requirement for GMPLS application of PCE 4. Requirement for GMPLS application of PCE
In this section, we describe requirements for GMPLS applications of In this section, we describe requirements for GMPLS applications of
PCE in order to establish GMPLS LSP. PCE in order to establish GMPLS LSP.
4.1 PCE requirements 4.1. PCE requirements
As for path computation in GMPLS networks as discussed in section 3, As for path computation in GMPLS networks as discussed in section 3,
the PCE needs to consider the GMPLS TE attributes appropriately the PCE needs to consider the GMPLS TE attributes appropriately
according to tables in [CSPF] once a PCC or another PCE requests a according to tables in [CSPF] once a PCC or another PCE requests a
path computation. Indeed, the path calculation request message from path computation. Indeed, the path calculation request message from
the PCC or the PCE needs to contain the information specifying the PCC or the PCE needs to contain the information specifying
appropriate attributes. Additional attributes to those already appropriate attributes. Additional attributes to those already
defined in [PCECP] are as follows. defined in [PCECP] are as follows.
(1) Switching capability: PSC1-4, L2SC, TDM, LSC, FSC (1) Switching capability: PSC1-4, L2SC, DCSC [DCSC-Ext], 802_1 PBB-TE
(2) Encoding type: as defined in [RFC4202], [RFC4203], e.g., [GMPLS-PBB-TE], TDM, LSC, FSC
Ethernet, SONET/SDH, Lambda, etc.
(3) Signal Type: Indicates the type of elementary signal that
constitutes the requested LSP. A lot of signal types with
different granularity have been defined in SONET/SDH and
G.709 ODUk, such as VC11, VC12, VC2, VC3 and VC4 in SDH, and
ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 in G.709 ODUk. See [RFC4606] and
[RFC4328].
(4) Concatenation Type: In SDH/SONET and G.709 ODUk networks,
two kinds of concatenation modes are defined: contiguous
concatenation which requires co-route for each member signal
and requires all the interfaces along the path to support
this capability, and virtual concatenation which allows
diverse routes for the member signals and only requires the
ingress and egress interfaces to support this capability.
Note that for the virtual concatenation, it also may specify
co-routed or separated-routed. See [RFC4606] and [RFC4328]
about Concatenation information.
(5) Concatenation Number: Indicates the number of signals that
are requested to be contiguously or virtually concatenated.
Also see [RFC4606] and [RFC4328].
(6) Wavelength Label: as defined in [Lambda-label]
(7) e2e Path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], e.g., 1+1
protection, 1:1 protection, (pre-planned) rerouting, etc.
(8) Administrative group: as defined in [RFC3630]
(9) Link Protection type: as defined in [RFC4203]
4.2 PCC requirements (2) Encoding type: as defined in [RFC4202], [RFC4203], e.g., Ethernet,
SONET/SDH, Lambda, etc.
(3) Signal Type: Indicates the type of elementary signal that
constitutes the requested LSP. A lot of signal types with
different granularity have been defined in SONET/SDH and G.709 ODUk,
such as VC11, VC12, VC2, VC3 and VC4 in SDH, and ODU1, ODU2 and ODU3 in
G.709 ODUk. See [RFC4606] and [RFC4328].
(4) Concatenation Type: In SDH/SONET and G.709 ODUk networks, two kinds
of concatenation modes are defined: contiguous concatenation which
requires co-route for each member signal and requires all the
interfaces along the path to support this capability, and virtual
concatenation which allows diverse routes for the member signals and
only requires the ingress and egress interfaces to support this
capability. Note that for the virtual concatenation, it also may
specify co-routed or separated-routed. See [RFC4606] and [RFC4328]
about Concatenation information.
(5) Concatenation Number: Indicates the number of signals that are
requested to be contiguously or virtually concatenated. Also see
[RFC4606] and [RFC4328].
(6) Wavelength Label: as defined in [Lambda-label].
(7) e2e Path protection type: as defined in [RFC4872], e.g., 1+1
protection, 1:1 protection, (pre-planned) rerouting, etc.
(8) Administrative group: as defined in [RFC3630].
(9) Link Protection type: as defined in [RFC4203].
(10)Support for unnumbered interfaces: as defined in [RFC3477].
(11)Support for asymmetric bandwidth request: as defined in [RFC 5467].
4.2. PCC requirements
As described above, a PCC needs to support to initiate path As described above, a PCC needs to support to initiate path
computation request specifying abovementioned attributes. Afterwards, computation request specifying abovementioned attributes. Afterwards,
GMPLS signaling will be invoked according to the responded messages GMPLS signaling will be invoked according to the responded messages
from the PCE. from the PCE.
4.3 GMPLS PCE Management 4.3. GMPLS PCE Management
PCE related Management Information Bases need to consider extensions PCE related Management Information Bases need to consider extensions
to be satisfied with requirements for GMPLS applications. For to be satisfied with requirements for GMPLS applications. For
extensions, [GMPLS-TEMIB] are defined to manage TE database and may extensions, [GMPLS-TEMIB] are defined to manage TE database and may
be referred to accommodate GMPLS TE attributes in the PCE. be referred to accommodate GMPLS TE attributes in the PCE.
5. Security consideration 5. Security consideration
PCE extensions to support GMPLS should be considered under the same PCE extensions to support GMPLS should be considered under the same
security as current work. This extension will not change the security as current work. This extension will not change the
underlying security issues. underlying security issues.
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
7. Acknowledgement 7. Acknowledgement
skipping to change at page 7, line 17 skipping to change at page 7, line 47
6. IANA Considerations 6. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA. This document has no actions for IANA.
7. Acknowledgement 7. Acknowledgement
The author would like to express the thanks to Shuichi Okamoto for The author would like to express the thanks to Shuichi Okamoto for
his comments. his comments.
8. Intellectual Property 8. References
The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
any IETF Document or the extent to which any license under such
rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it
has made any independent effort to identify any such rights.
Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF [PCE-ARCH] A. Farrel, et al, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-Based
Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or Architecture", RFC4655, Aug., 2006.
the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any [PCECP-REQ] J. Ash, et al, "Path computation element (PCE) communication
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary protocol generic requirements", RFC4657, Sept., 2007.
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
this standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or [MPLS-AS] R. Zhan, et al, "MPLS Inter-Autonomous System (AS) Traffic
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are Engineering (TE) Requirements", RFC4216, November 2005.
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards [CSPF] T. Otani, et al, "Considering Generalized Multiprotocol
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of Label Switching Traffic Engineering Attributes During Path
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the Computation", draft-otani-ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms, 07.txt, Feb., 2008.
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
9. Informative references [RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate (MPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, January
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 2003.
[PCE-ARCH] A. Farrel, et al, "A Path Computation Element (PCE)-
Based Architecture", RFC4655, Aug., 2006.
[PCECP-REQ] J. Ash, et al, "Path computation element (PCE)
communication protocol generic requirements", RFC4657,
Sept., 2007.
[MPLS-AS] R. Zhan, et al, "MPLS Inter-Autonomous System (AS)
Traffic Engineering (TE) Requirements", RFC4216,
November 2005.
[CSPF] T. Otani, et al, "Considering Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching Traffic Engineering
Attributes During Path Computation", draft-otani-
ccamp-gmpls-cspf-constraints-07.txt, Feb., 2008.
[RFC3471] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Signaling Functional Description",
RFC 3471, January 2003.
[RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (MPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation
Protocol Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions",
RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4726] A. Farrel, et al, "A framework for inter-domain MPLS
traffic engineering", RFC4726, November 2006.
[Arch] E. Mannie, et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching Architecture", RFC3945, October, 2004.
[PCECP] J.P. Vasseur, et al, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC5440, March 2009.
[RFC4202] K. Kompella, and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching", RFC4202, Oct. 2005.
[RFC4203] K. Kompella, and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in
Support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching", RFC4203, Oct. 2005.
[RFC4872] J.P. Lang, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of
End-to-End Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS) Recovery", RFC4872, May 2007.
[GMPLS-TEMIB] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic
Engineering Management Information Base", RFC4802,
Feb. 2007.
[RFC3630] D. Katz et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions
to OSPF Version 2", RFC3630, September 2003.
[Lambda-label] T. Otani, Ed., "Generalized Labels for G.694 Lambda-
Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", draft-
ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels-04.txt, Mar.
2009.
[RFC5394] I. Bryskin et al., " Policy-Enabled Path Computation
Framework", RFC5394, December 2008.
[RFC4606] E. Mannie and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for
Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous
Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC4606, August
2006.
[RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for
G.709 Optical Transport Networks Control", RFC4328,
January 2006.
Author's Addresses [RFC3473] Berger, L., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(MPLS) Signaling - Resource ReserVation Protocol Traffic
Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, January 2003.
[RFC4726] A. Farrel, et al, "A framework for inter-domain MPLS traffic
engineering", RFC4726, November 2006.
[Arch] E. Mannie, et al, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching Architecture", RFC3945, October, 2004.
[PCECP] J.P. Vasseur, et al, "Path Computation Element (PCE)
Communication Protocol (PCEP)", RFC5440, March 2009.
[RFC4202] K. Kompella, and Y. Rekhter, "Routing Extensions in Support
of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC4202,
Oct. 2005.
[RFC4203] K. Kompella, and Y. Rekhter, "OSPF Extensions in Support of
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching", RFC4203, Oct.
2005.
[RFC4872] J.P. Lang, Ed., "RSVP-TE Extensions in Support of End-to-End
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Recovery", RFC4872, May 2007.
[GMPLS-TEMIB] T. Nadeau and A. Farrel, Ed., "Generalized
Multiprotocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering
Management Information Base", RFC4802, Feb. 2007.
[RFC3630] D. Katz et al., "Traffic Engineering (TE) Extensions to OSPF
Version 2", RFC3630, September 2003.
[Lambda-label] T. Otani, Ed., "Generalized Labels for G.694 Lambda-
Switching Capable Label Switching Routers", draft-ietf-
ccamp-gmpls-g-694-lambda-labels, in progress.
[RFC5394] I. Bryskin et al., " Policy-Enabled Path Computation
Framework", RFC5394, December 2008.
[RFC4606] E. Mannie and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical
Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH)
Control", RFC4606, August 2006.
[RFC4328] D. Papadimitriou, Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Extensions for G.709 Optical
Transport Networks Control", RFC4328, January 2006.
[DCSC-Ext] Lou Berger, et al.,"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Data Channel
Switching Capable (DCSC) and Channel Set Label Extensions",
in progress.
[GMPLS-PBB-TE] Don Fedyk, et al., "Generalized Multiprotocol Label
Switching (GMPLS) control of Ethernet PBB-TE", in progress.
9. Authors' Addresses
Tomohiro Otani Tomohiro Otani
KDDI Corporation KDDI Corporation
2-3-2 Nishi-shinjuku Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-8003 Japan 2-3-2 Nishi-shinjuku Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 163-8003 Japan
Phone: +81-3-3347-6006 Phone: +81-3-3347-6006
Email: tm-otani@kddi.com Email: tm-otani@kddi.com
Kenichi Ogaki Kenichi Ogaki
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc. KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi, Saitama 356-8502 Japan 2-1-15 Ohara Fujimino-shi, Saitama 356-8502 Japan
skipping to change at page 9, line 33 skipping to change at page 9, line 50
Email: ogaki@kddilabs.jp Email: ogaki@kddilabs.jp
Diego Caviglia Diego Caviglia
Ericsson Ericsson
16153 Genova Cornigliano, ITALY 16153 Genova Cornigliano, ITALY
Phone: +390106003736 Phone: +390106003736
Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com Email: diego.caviglia@ericsson.com
Fatai Zhang Fatai Zhang
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base F3-5-B R&D Center, Huawei Base,
Bantian, Longgang District Bantian, Longgang District
Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China Shenzhen 518129 P.R.China
Phone: +86-755-28972912 Phone: +86-755-28972912
Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com
Full Copyright statement Intellectual Property
Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the The IETF Trust takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
document authors. All rights reserved. any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology
described in any IETF Document or the extent to which any license
under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it
represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any
such rights.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Copies of Intellectual Property disclosures made to the IETF
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or
publication of this document (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or
and restrictions with respect to this document. users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr
The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
any standard or specification contained in an IETF Document. Please
address the information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
The definitive version of an IETF Document is that published by, or
under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of IETF Documents that are
published by third parties, including those that are translated into
other languages, should not be considered to be definitive versions
of IETF Documents. The definitive version of these Legal Provisions
is that published by, or under the auspices of, the IETF. Versions of
these Legal Provisions that are published by third parties, including
those that are translated into other languages, should not be
considered to be definitive versions of these Legal Provisions.
For the avoidance of doubt, each Contributor to the IETF Standards
Process licenses each Contribution that he or she makes as part of
the IETF Standards Process to the IETF Trust pursuant to the
provisions of RFC 5378. No language to the contrary, or terms,
conditions or rights that differ from or are inconsistent with the
rights and licenses granted under RFC 5378, shall have any effect and
shall be null and void, whether published or posted by such
Contributor, or included with or in such Contribution.
Disclaimer of Validity
All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided All IETF Documents and the information contained therein are provided
on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE
IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL
WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY
WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION THEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
 End of changes. 36 change blocks. 
190 lines changed or deleted 245 lines changed or added

This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.38. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/